DOCSLIB.ORG

Frankenstein: Mary Shelley's Narrative on Screen / Frankenstein: a Narrativa De Mary Shelley No Cinema

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Frankenstein: Mary Shelley's Narrative on Screen / Frankenstein: a Narrativa De Mary Shelley No Cinema ISSN: 2317-2347 – v. 8, n. 1 (2019) Frankenstein: Mary Shelley's narrative on screen / Frankenstein: a narrativa de Mary Shelley no cinema Francisco Romário Nunes* Francisco Carlos Carvalho da Silva** ABSTRACT This article presents a brief overview of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein or, Modern Prometheus film adaptations. First published in 1818, the narrative continues to exert influence in various media, especially in cinema. Victor Frankenstein, the story’s central character, develops experiments to generate life in a monstrous creature. However, the creation escapes from Frankenstein’s control and affects him by a series of tragic crimes. Based on some theoretical discussions about film adaptation as translation (LEFEVERE, 2007; HUTCHEON, 2013), we investigate how Mary Shelley's novel continues to be rewritten on screen and what traits can be observed in the following adaptations: Frankenstein (1931), directed by James Whale; and Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1994), directed by Kenneth Branagh. The films, produced in different moments, address two distinguishable interpretations of the author’s story. We assume that both films re-signify the literary work according to different contexts, creating new images of Mary Shelley's centenary story. KEYWORDS: Frankenstein; Literature; Cinema; Film Adaptation. RESUMO O presente artigo traça um breve panorama das adaptações fílmicas da obra Frankenstein or, the modern Prometheus, de Mary Shelley. Publicado pela primeira vez em 1818, a narrativa continua a exercer influência nas diversas mídias, especialmente no cinema. Victor Frankenstein, personagem protagonista, desenvolve experimentos para dar vida a uma criatura monstruosa. Contudo, a criação escapa do controle de Frankenstein, que é acometido por uma série de crimes trágicos. A partir de algumas discussões sobre adaptação fílmica como tradução (LEFEVERE, 2007; HUTCHEON, 2013), investigamos de que modo o romance de Mary Shelley continua sendo reescrito nas telas e quais traços podem ser observados nas seguintes adaptações: Frankenstein (1931), com direção de James Whale; e Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1994), dirigido por Kenneth Branagh. Os filmes, produzidos em períodos distintos, propiciam leituras distintas do romance da escritora inglesa. Partimos do pressuposto que as narrativas fílmicas ressignificam a obra literária a partir dos seus diferentes contextos de produção, contribuindo para criar novas imagens da história centenária de Mary Shelley. PALAVRAS-CHAVES: Frankenstein; Literatura; Cinema; Adaptação Fílmica. 1 Introduction This paper aims at a critical-descriptive analysis of two adaptations of the novel Frankenstein, by the English author Mary Shelley: Frankenstein (1931), directed by James Whale; and Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1994), directed by Kenneth Branagh. The text seeks to trace the ways in which each film rewrites Mary Shelley’s novel in relation to the different production contexts. In this sense, we may ask: how does * Doctorate student in Literature and Culture at Federal University of Bahia – UFBA, Salvador – BA, Brazil; [email protected]. ** Professor (PhD) at Ceará State University – UECE, Quixadá – CE, Brazil; [email protected]. Todo o conteúdo da Revista Letras Raras está licenciado sob Creative Commons Atribuição 4.0 Internacional 128 ISSN: 2317-2347 – v. 8, n. 1 (2019) cinema rewrite Mary Shelley’s narrative? Have the films contributed to popularize Frankenstein? What differences can be observed in the film adaptations? The theoretical framework briefly explores some aspects of film adaptation studies supported by the following authors: Lefevere (2007), Hutcheon (2010), and Stam (2008). Next, we present the novel in relation to the myth of Prometheus, in which the story is rooted. And, finally, we analyze the films in their different contexts, pointing out variations and narrative constructions of cinema. We assume that the film adaptations re-signify the literary text through different perspectives, whose transformations in both language and culture contribute to create new images of Mary Shelley’s centennial story. As an example, in James Whale’s film, we see a shift in the narrative to generate a happy ending to the public, who lived in the context of World War II. Kenneth Branagh’s adaptation, on the other hand, uses violence both to impact and to produce greater drama. In a way, cinema inherited a famous story in the literary milieu; however, the adaptations reverberate other ideas in comparison with the source text. 2 The art of cinema and film adaptation At the end of the 19th century, in 1895, for the first time in history, pictures were photographed in motion. The French brothers Auguste and Louis Lumière were responsible for the creation of the Cinématographe which initially reproduced pictures at sixteen frames per second. Cinema, during those early years, was little more than forty second films, which generally depicted the movement of bourgeois life in European cities during the belle époque. From that time, we can highlight L’Arrivée d’un train en gare de la Ciotat, from 1985, still remembered to this day as the film that started cinematic illusionism. In order to popularize cinema, the first filmmakers – most notably the American D.W. Griffith – began to adapt classic literature books. D. W. Griffith, for instance, appropriated from literature, especially using Charles Dickens’s eighteenth-century novels, to produce linear films and develop the point of view (MACHADO, 2011). Soon after, film companies and directors interested in making cinema a fine art, sensed they should direct camera lenses to pages of literary works. The literary prestige would Todo o conteúdo da Revista Letras Raras está licenciado sob Creative Commons Atribuição 4.0 Internacional 129 ISSN: 2317-2347 – v. 8, n. 1 (2019) give greater credibility to the moving image, since the audience would be curious to review the classics represented in the projection rooms. In addition to ensuring a good financial return from an audience eager for novelty, which at that time the invention of cinema could provide in the art field. With the growth of this practice throughout the twentieth century, some scholars (CATTRYSSE, 1992; STAM, 2008; HUTCHEON, 2013) have focused their studies on film adaptations based on literary texts, aiming at investigating how a literary narrative is transformed since cinema produces new meanings, often having to rewrite the source text to suit the receiving system. Lefevere, in Tradução, reescrita e manipulação da fama literária (2007), elaborates the concept of rewriting in the field of literary translation to understand how a work is modified according to ideological, poetic and cultural interests. The author brings relevant contributions regarding how translations, understood as rewriting, are part of the literary system, thus creating [...] images of a writer, a work, a period, a genre, sometimes even a whole literature. These images existed side by side with the realities they competed with, but the images always tended to reach more people than the corresponding realities did, and they most certainly do so now. (LEFEVERE, 2007, p. 18-19). In this sense, a film adaptation can also be thought of as a type of rewriting/translation, since it generates other images of a certain literary work in the cinematographic system. Nevertheless, audience expansion is another characteristic observed in this phenomenon, since cinema condenses stories and incorporates various stimuli (sound and imagery), popularizing them in the movie theaters in different countries at the same time. Understood as a new text, a rewriting, the adapted work transforms the previous text and provides another kind of interaction with the intended audience. It is no longer a written text only, but it depends on the film plane, framing, movement, sound, costumes, acting, light, and all the elements that make up the filmic image. This combination of traits, which can even be used as an analogy to Mary Shelley’s own monster, also brings forth a kind of pleasure. At this point, the pleasure connects with the possibility of experiencing the same story in a different medium, which makes the viewer to have another kind of engagement with the ongoing narrative. Todo o conteúdo da Revista Letras Raras está licenciado sob Creative Commons Atribuição 4.0 Internacional 130 ISSN: 2317-2347 – v. 8, n. 1 (2019) Hutcheon argues (2013, p. 25) that “[...] part of this pleasure comes simply from repetition with variation, from the comfort of ritual combined with the piquancy of surprise.” The adaptation, this other work, like the creature that comes to life by Frankenstein skills, escapes from the creative genius. Its power generates other boundaries as we interact and produce our own interpretations and experience. In this sense, a film, according to Stam (2008, p.21), “involves collaboration”, and as such “total originality, therefore, is neither possible nor desirable.” Therefore, one way of understanding this artistic combination which produces a film is through intertextual readings of media, in this case, literature and cinema. As Stam (2008, 22) points out, “film adaptations fall into the continuous whirlwind of intertextual transformations and references, from texts that generate other texts [...]”, and, depending on the production contexts, interventions and appropriations may vary in order to ensure a certain poetics and ideology for a specific audience. The stories, therefore, told through the cinema, repeat aspects of literature,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Horror Film Series
    Ihe Museum of Modern Art No. 11 jest 53 Street, New York, N.Y. 10019 Circle 5-8900 Cable: Modernart Saturday, February 6, I965 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE The Museum of Modern Art Film Library will present THE HORROR FILM, a series of 20 films, from February 7 through April, 18. Selected by Arthur L. Mayer, the series is planned as a representative sampling, not a comprehensive survey, of the horror genre. The pictures range from the early German fantasies and legends, THE CABINET OF DR. CALIGARI (I9I9), NOSFERATU (1922), to the recent Roger Corman-Vincent Price British series of adaptations of Edgar Allan Poe, represented here by THE MASQUE OF THE RED DEATH (I96IO. Milestones of American horror films, the Universal series in the 1950s, include THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA (1925), FRANKENSTEIN (1951), his BRIDE (l$55), his SON (1929), and THE MUMMY (1953). The resurgence of the horror film in the 1940s, as seen in a series produced by Val Lewton at RR0, is represented by THE CAT PEOPLE (19^), THE CURSE OF THE CAT PEOPLE (19^4), I WALKED WITH A ZOMBIE (19*£), and THE BODY SNAT0HER (19^5). Richard Griffith, Director of the Film Library, and Mr. Mayer, in their book, The Movies, state that "In true horror films, the archcriminal becomes the archfiend the first and greatest of whom was undoubtedly Lon Chaney. ...The year Lon Chaney died [1951], his director, Tod Browning,filmed DRACULA and therewith launched the full vogue of horror films. What made DRACULA a turning-point was that it did not attempt to explain away its tale of vampirism and supernatural horrors.
    [Show full text]
  • Is Moved up SPEAKER to STORY Appear Here Scenes Steeped in Mid-West Frontier Thedral Will Be Visited
    Eastern Illinois University The Keep July 1935 7-16-1935 Daily Eastern News: July 16, 1935 Eastern Illinois University Follow this and additional works at: https://thekeep.eiu.edu/den_1935_jul Recommended Citation Eastern Illinois University, "Daily Eastern News: July 16, 1935" (1935). July. 6. https://thekeep.eiu.edu/den_1935_jul/6 This Book is brought to you for free and open access by the 1935 at The Keep. It has been accepted for inclusion in July by an authorized administrator of The Keep. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Herbert Petrie's Hussars Amateur Night We~nesday, July 24 Ueacbera <tollege 1Rewa Thursday, 8 P. M. Columbia M eda!ist I CPA First Place Tif/ inner, 1935 "TELL THE TRUTH AND DON'T BE AFRAID" 1931-32-33-31-35 V.OL. XX. CHARLESTON, !iLLINOIS, TUEeDAY, Ju;LY 16, 1935 NO. 6-S Second Lincoln Country Excursion, to Amateur Nite EI TOASTMISTRESS •!Hussars Will Kentucky, Is Slated for This Week BEATS KADELPIAN 'S Is Moved Up SPEAKER TO STORY Appear Here Scenes steeped in Mid-west frontier thedral will be visited. This church history will be visited on the tri-state Was the Second cathedral established Wilma Nuttal, social chairman To Thursday west of the Appalachian mountains. of Kappa Delta Pi, reports from On July 24th excursion to be sponsored jointly by Denver where she attended the e history and geography depart- From Vincennes the party will con- K d . b Date for Show Advanced from th . tinue southeast through Petersburg to a e1 plan anquet last fort- Herbert Petrie's Instrumental Friday; Edith Stoltz, Chair­ ments th1s .
    [Show full text]
  • Ambler Theater a NONPROFIT
    A NONPROFIT Ambler Theater ART HOUSE Previews105A SEPTEMBER – DECEMBER 2018 Bengt Ekerot and Max von Sydow in THE SEVENTH SEAL in Sydow and Max von Bengt Ekerot INCLUDES OUR MAIN ATTRACTIONS AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS A MBLERT HEATER.ORG 215 345 7855 Welcome to the nonprofit Ambler Theater The Ambler Theater is a nonprofit, tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization. Policies ADMISSION Children under 6 – Children under age 6 will not be admitted to our films or programs unless specifically indicated. General ............................................................$11.25 Late Arrivals – The theater reserves the right to stop selling Members ...........................................................$6.75 tickets (and/or seating patrons) 10 minutes after a film has Seniors (62+) & Students ..................................$9.00 started. Matinees Outside Food and Drink – Patrons are not permitted to bring Mon, Tues, Thurs & Fri before 4:30 outside food and drink into the theater. Sat & Sun before 2:30 .....................................$9.00 Wed Early Matinee before 2:30 ........................$8.00 Accessibility & Hearing Assistance – The Ambler Theater has wheelchair-accessible auditoriums and restrooms, and is Affiliated Theater Members* .............................$6.75 equipped with hearing enhancement headsets and closed You must present your membership card to obtain membership discounts. caption devices. (Please inquire at the concession stand.) The above ticket prices are subject to change. Parking – Check our website for parking information. THANK YOU MEMBERS! Your membership is the foundation of the theater’s success. Without your membership support, we would not How can you support AMBLER THEATER exist. Thank you for being a member. Contact us with your feedback the Ambler Theater? MEMBER or questions at 215 348 1878 x115 or email us at Be a member.
    [Show full text]
  • English 2333: an Abbreviated Frankenstein Filmography Dr
    English 2333: An Abbreviated Frankenstein Filmography Dr. Monica Smith [Before this class meeting, students watch the Edison Frankenstein for homework and answer three questions, and we begin class by reviewing these questions: 1) What version of the Creature does this film present: the Creature as monster, the creature as human, or something in between? 2) What aspects of Shelley’s story (characterization, plot detail, setting, imagery) have the filmmakers kept? What has been deleted? To what effect? 3) What role does music play in this film?] Frankenstein (usually called The 1910 Edison Frankenstein) Director J. Searle Dawley. Starring Charles Ogle. Edison, 1910. Silent film. Approximately 13 minutes. This is the earliest known film version of Frankenstein. Regrettably, the only surviving copy was held by a private collector who refused to let film students and scholars study or even view it. Now the film fortunately has passed into the public domain and is available via Google video. Frankenstein Director James Whale. Starring Boris Karloff, Colin Clive, and Mae Clarke. Produced by Carl Laemmle, Jr. Adaptation by Robert Florey and John L. Balderston. Screenplay by Garrett Fort, Robert Florey, and Francis Edward Faragoh. Based on the play by Peggy Webling. Universal, 1931. 71 minutes. This version makes substantive changes to both plot and character, renaming our protagonist, for one example, “Dr. Henry Frankenstein,” and calling his friend “Victor.” This film gives us many of the stock elements of the twentieth-century Frankenstein myth: the mad scientist in a castle on a mountaintop who cries “It’s alive! It’s alive!” when his reanimation is successful, the scientist’s hunchbacked assistant, and the robot-like, inarticulate creature with bolts in his neck.
    [Show full text]
  • Bride of Frankenstein
    Frankenstein and The Bride of Frankenstein Richard T. Jameson “The A List: The National Society of Film Critics 100 Essential Films, ” 2002 Reprinted by permission of the author In 1931, the director Robert Florey lived in a Los Ange- les apartment with a view of a Dutch-style bakery and its logo, a windmill complete with turning vanes. Flo- rey had just been assigned by Carl Laemmle Jr. to di- rect a production of “Frankenstein” for Universal, and as he mused on a possible look for the film, he found himself considering a windmill as a key location— perhaps the site of the scientist’s secret laboratory. As it happened, it would be James Whale, not Florey, who directed “Frankenstein,” and Henry Frankenstein would set up shop in “an abandoned watchtower.” But that windmill got lodged in the collective brain of the filmmaking team (also in one line of dialogue absent- mindedly retained from an early script draft), and fi- nally made it on screen as an opportunistic but aptly crazed-Gothic setting for the film’s fiery climax. It’s all very well to talk about aesthetically unified mas- terpieces and posit them as the definition of film art. But movies are a messy business, and the irksome (glorious?) truth is that some landmark films have be- Poster from the 1953 re-release of the ‘30s horror classic come utterly indispensable and culturally pervasive Courtesy Library of Congress Prints & Photographs Online Collection despite being created by committee and riddled with imperfections. In the case of Frankenstein, the imper- fections include half-baked sequences, tedious subsidi- ture he’d assembled from parts of dead bodies.
    [Show full text]
  • Reflections of Science and Medicine in Two Frankenstein Adaptations: Frankenstein (Whale
    Reflections of Science and Medicine in Two Frankenstein Adaptations: Frankenstein (Whale 1931) and Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (Branagh 1994) Fran Pheasant-Kelly Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, a novel that centers on a scientist who collects organs and limbs from dead bodies to construct a new being, illustrates the complex, interwoven history of science and science fiction. The novel’s attention to the animation of assembled body parts reflects contemporaneous scientific interest in the reanimation of corpses by galvanism. In this article, I extend the science/science-fiction relationship developed in the novel by analyzing the visual differences between two of its subsequent film adaptations. Although scholars have extensively scrutinized and speculated about Shelley’s influences, limited consideration of contemporary scientific influences on later film versions exists. The first production considered here, directed by James Whale in 1931, presents Shelley’s Creature1 as a monstrous robotic figure, suggesting automation as an influencing theme and electricity as a source of life. Its mechanical movement echoes developments in mechanization typical of the time, as well as the related theme of automatism associated with the Futurist art movement. In stark contrast, the Creature of Kenneth Branagh’s 1994 adaptation is corporeal and abject, with more emphasis placed on bodily fluids than electricity. While neither version takes into account obvious medical implausibilities, such as incompatible tissue types, brain death, and irreversible tissue damage, they do reveal how discourses of science and medical history have shifted since Shelley wrote her novel. If Whale’s adaptation reflects interest in and experimentation with the effects of technology and electricity as well as co-existent issues of eugenics and criminal atavism, then Branagh’s film typifies concurrent scientific preoccupations with assisted reproduction and cloning.
    [Show full text]
  • P-26 Motion Picture Collection Repository: Seaver Center For
    P-26 Motion Picture Collection Repository: Seaver Center for Western History Research, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County Span Dates: c.1872-1971, bulk 1890s-1930s Extent: 48 linear feet Language: Primarily English Conditions Governing Use: Permission to publish, quote or reproduce must be secured from the repository and the copyright holder Conditions Governing Access: Research is by appointment only Preferred Citation: Motion Picture Collection, Seaver Center for Western History Research, Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History Related Holdings: There are numerous related collections, and these can be found by consulting the Photo and General Collection guides available at the Seaver Center’s website. They include manuscripts in general collection 1095 (Motion Pictures Collection), general collection 1269 (Motion Picture Programs and Memorabilia), general collection 1286 (Movie Posters Collection), general collection 1287 (Movie Window Cards and Lobby Cards Collection), and general collection 1288 (Motion Picture Exhibitors’ Campaign Books). Seaver Center for Western History Research P-26 Abstract: The Motion Picture Collection is primarily a photograph collection. Actor and actress stills are represented, including portraits by studio photographers, film and set stills, and other images, as well as related programs, brochures and clippings. Early technology and experimental work in moving pictures is represented by images about camera and projection devices and their inventors. Items related to movie production include early laboratories, sound, lighting and make-up technology. These items form Photograph Collection P-26 in the Seaver Center for Western History Research. Scope and Content: The Motion Picture Collection is primarily a photograph collection. Actor and actress stills are represented (including portraits by studio photographers), film stills, set stills, and other images, as well as related programs, brochures and clippings.
    [Show full text]
  • FRANKENSTEIN: the Modern Prometheus Is the First I N T H I S S T U D Y G U I D E True Science Fiction Novel
    2018 S T U D Y G U I D E B Y J A M I L A R E D D Y A Study Guide to Aquila Theatre’s Production of FRANKwritten bEy Mary SNhelley STEIN Written two centuries ago in 1818 by Mary Shelley, FRANKENSTEIN: The Modern Prometheus is the first I N T H I S S T U D Y G U I D E true science fiction novel. Years ahead of its time, the story has since become the inspiration for countless film and stage adaptations. Frankenstein is a living, breathing, SUMMARY gruesome outcome of scientific discovery. The piece raises an important universal question about the nature of innovation- just because it can be done, should it be WHO'S WHO IN done?' FRANKENSTEIN Victor Frankenstein is a Swiss scientist with a mission to create an artificial human. Without considering the THE FIRST SCENE consequences of such progress, he succeeds with terrifying results. After wandering the world alone, the monster eventually comes for Frankenstein’s family. SAY WHAT?: Horrific events unfold until the doctor tentatively agrees to create a mate for the creature. Ultimately, the doctor VOCABULARY refuses in an effort to spare humanity but bears the terrible and personal penalties of his decision. Two hundred years later, Frankenstein still poses a myriad of FRANKENSTEIN ON critical ethical questions. Aquila Theatre’s production of FILM this timeless classic is bold and thrilling – while paying homage to the original, frightening writing of Mary Shelley. THINK ABOUT IT! DISCUSSION Q'S. S U M M A R Y Robert Walton writes a series of letters to his sister Margaret Saville and tells the story of how his polar expedition becomes trapped in ice and how one day he sees a 'gigantic figure' in the distance.
    [Show full text]
  • Genre Films: OLLI: Spring 2021: Weeks 1 & 2: Week 1: the PUBLIC ENEMY (1931) Directed by William A
    Genre Films: OLLI: Spring 2021: Weeks 1 & 2: week 1: THE PUBLIC ENEMY (1931) directed by William A. Wellman cast: James Cagney, Edward Woods, Jean Harlow, Joan Blondell, Beryl Mercer, Donald Cook, Mae Clarke, Leslie Fenton, Robert Emmett O'Connor, Murray Kinnell From filmsite.org: “The Public Enemy (1931) is one of the earliest and best of the gangster films from Warner Bros. in the thirties. The film's screenplay (by John Bright and Kubec Glasmon), which received the film's only Academy Award nomination, was based upon their novel Beer and Blood. Unfortunately, the film wasn't even given a Best Picture nomination, nor was Cagney rewarded with a nomination for his dynamic and kinetic performance. Jean Harlow's small role as a sexy call-girl was her only screen appearance with Cagney and her only lead role with Warners. Director William Wellman's pre-code, box-office smash, shot in less than a month at a cost of approximately $151,000, was released at approximately the same time as another classical gangster film – Little Caesar (1930/31) that starred Edward G. Robinson as a petty thief whose criminal ambitions led to his inevitable downfall. The Public Enemy was even tougher, more violent and realistic (released before the censorship codes were strictly enforced), although most of the violence is again off-screen. “The lead character is portrayed as a sexually magnetic, cocky, completely amoral, emotionally brutal, ruthless, and terribly lethal individual. However, the protagonist (a cold-blooded, tough- as-nails racketeer and "public enemy") begins his life, not as a hardened criminal, but as a young mischievous boy in pre-Prohibition city streets, whose early environment clearly contributes to the evolving development of his life of adult crime and his inevitable gruesome death.
    [Show full text]
  • Regional Oral History Office University of California the Bancroft Library Berkeley, California
    Regional Oral History Office University of California The Bancroft Library Berkeley, California Robert H. Bragg AN ORAL HISTORY WITH ROBERT H. BRAGG Interviews conducted by Nadine Wilmot in 2002 Copyright © 2005 by The Regents of the University of California Since 1954 the Regional Oral History Office has been interviewing leading participants in or well-placed witnesses to major events in the development of northern California, the West, and the nation. Oral history is a method of collecting historical information through tape-recorded interviews between a narrator with firsthand knowledge of historically significant events and a well-informed interviewer, with the goal of preserving substantive additions to the historical record. The tape recording is transcribed, lightly edited for continuity and clarity, and reviewed by the interviewee. The corrected manuscript is indexed, bound with photographs and illustrative materials, and placed in The Bancroft Library at the University of California, Berkeley, and in other research collections for scholarly use. Because it is primary material, oral history is not intended to present the final, verified, or complete narrative of events. It is a spoken account, offered by the interviewee in response to questioning, and as such it is reflective, partisan, deeply involved, and irreplaceable. ************************************ All uses of this manuscript are covered by a legal agreement between The Regents of the University of California and Robert H. Bragg, dated June 18, 2002. The manuscript is thereby made available for research purposes. All literary rights in the manuscript, including the right to publish, are reserved to The Bancroft Library of the University of California, Berkeley. No part of the manuscript may be quoted for publication without the written permission of the Director of The Bancroft Library of the University of California, Berkeley.
    [Show full text]
  • Apolwscomfomrcoot-Uvr
    .TUNE IS, 1932 THE INDIANAPOLIS TIMES PAGE 5 PALACE WILL GIVE SPECIAL SHOWS FOR CHILDREN Lewis Carroll's ‘Alice in Wonderland’ Will Be Presented Norman Thomas Quintet, a Negro Musical Group Fea- Each Morning Next Week at 9 o’clock—John turing a Wild Drummer, Is Headline Event on Barrymore Tops Cast of ‘States Attorney.’ New Variety Bill at Lyric. yrar marks the 100th anniversary of the birth of Lewi* Carroll, Norman Thomas quintet, one of the foremosi Negro entertainers THISauthor of the immortal child classic, “Alice in Wonderland.” He THEin vaudeville, are headliners on the new stage show opening at the di*d Jan. 14, 1898, at the age of 62. Lyric today. Mankind would have been enriched if he had devoted his life to Stockman's children’s revue is an added attraction on this six-act bringing out more gold of fancy from the vein he uncovered in his two RKO vaudeville program. books about Alice's adventures with the Walrus and the Carpenter, the Lew Ayres. Mae Clarke and Boris Karloff are featured in the new Uni- White Rabbit, the Duchess, the Mad Hatter and their compeers. :%{'|gft JSflHb a|By| versal picture, “Night World.” The of the Norman Thomas quintet includes a But Lewis Carroll denied to all his friends that he was Lewis Carroll. personnel drummmer. Enslaved by what he considered his most important he a singer, two dancers and a pianist. work, insisted he outdo was the Rev. Charles Lutwidge Dodson, fellow of Christ The drummer is said to any form of drumming that has yet church at Ox- Every gyration ford university and writer on mathe- been drummed.
    [Show full text]
  • The Buffalo Film Seminars Angelika 8 Theater
    The Buffalo Film Seminars 1/19/00 Angelika 8 Theater THE PUBLIC ENEMY 1931, Warner Brothers, 83 minutes Director: William A. Wellman Screenplay: Harvey Thew, based on a story by Jubec Glasmon & John Bright Cinematography: Dev Jennings Editor: E. M. McDermott Tom Powers James Cagney Gwen Allen Jean Harlow Matt Doyle Edward Woods Mamie Joan Blondell Ma Powers Beryl Mercer Mike Powers Donald Cook Kitty Mae Clarke Nails Nathan Leslie Fenton WILLIAM A. WELLMAN (1896-1975) directed about 80 films, beginning with The Twin Hands of Suffering Creek in 1920 (uncredited) and ending with Darby’s Rangers (1958). Along the way he directed Wings (1927), which won the first Academy Award for best picture, A Star is Born (1937), Beau Geste (1939), The Ox-Bow Incident (1943), Battleground (1949), and The High and the Mighty (1954). JAMES CAGNEY (1899-1986) acted in more than 70 films, among them ‘G’ Men (1935), Angels With Dirty Faces (1938), Each Dawn I Die (1939), Yankee Doodle Dandy (1942, his only Academy Award), 13 Rue Madeleine (1946), White Heat (1949, played Cody Jarrett: “Made it, Ma! Top a the world!”), Mister Robert (1955), Ragtime (1981). JEAN HARLOW (1911-1937): In her ten year film career–beginning with a bit part in Why is a Plumber (1927)–Harlow appeared in 39 films, most notably Hell’s Angels (1930), Platinum Blonde (1931), Red Dust (1932), Dinner at Eight (1933), Bombshell (1933), and Saratoga (1937). Next week, January 26: 42nd Street for cast and crew info on almost any film: http://us.imdb.com/search.html For series schedule, links and updates: http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~bjackson/movies.html To get on the listserv for the class send an email to [email protected] with this line & nothing else as the message sub greatmovies-list Firstname Lastname email Bruce Jackson: [email protected] email Diane Christian: [email protected].
    [Show full text]